Comments on: My IQhttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/
Mathematics, applications of mathematics to life in general, and my life as a mathematician.Wed, 01 Aug 2018 17:04:19 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8By: Wendyhttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/#comment-349
Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:32:03 +0000https://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=84#comment-349Without having read all the others’ viewpoints (so, forgive a possible redundancy), one could guess
cow, as it is the only word where the second letter doesn’t descend.

I’ve been frustrated with the ambiguity of Mensa’s practice tests. Looking for the “best” among two
or more correct answers is ludicrous and purely subjective, leaving me wondering whether Mensan’s are
among one mindset. What other reason would such a ‘high IQ society’ allow a flawed test to serve
as a viable indication of superior intellect?

Hmmmm .

]]>By: benhttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/#comment-348
Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:37:32 +0000https://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=84#comment-348I totally agree with “gaussian”. The winner (smartest) is the one who can not only entertain the extra-creative options, but can also then apply sufficient contextual reasoning to pick the most likely one. Making it impossible to be “too creative to fail their test”. Creativity (coming up with alternatives) is orthogonal to critical thinking (evaluating the alternatives). You could be I sufficiently creative and just not see the alternative. But once you see many alternatives, the test is of your ability to eliminate the right ones.
]]>By: gaussianhttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/#comment-347
Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:55:06 +0000https://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=84#comment-347I disagree. You are creating unnecessary confusion. Seeing more than one alternative is good only if you take the next step to evaluate these alternatives in terms of reasonableness. Otherwise, you just turn your mind into soup, which is the opposite of intelligent.

1. Hen is obviously the odd one out, because it is the only non-mammal in that list. “Kosher” argument is not very good, because it would make the question culturally specific and narrow. You are not supposed to be distracted by small possibilities when there is a big and strong one that’s obvious. Do you think it’s reasonable to expect the test-maker to be Jewish and to expect test-takers to answer an IQ test from Jewish perspective? That fails reasoning from context. Similarly, deciding according to the number of letters is also not very good. That takes away meaning from the question.

2. Same with the sequence of natural numbers. All other explanations are more complex, and Occam’s razor principle requires you to eliminate them. Again, thinking of them is not bad, but getting stuck at that stage, and repeatedly telling yourself you are just too creative for IQ tests, and denigrating the test-makers is a fail.

3.I completely disagree with your 30, 31 sequence example as well. IF the sequence only contained 12 elements, and they mimicked the number of days per month per year, THEN I would agree with you. But there are “…” at the end of the test. So, Occam’s razor demands not to add unnecessary confusions. It is POSSIBLE that the test-taker intended you to see that, but do you have any EVIDENCE for that? Why would the test-maker give you question you would not be able answer based on evidence provided in the questions? To give you an analogy, if you have taken high-school algebra, you know infinite number of polynomials can pass through 6 points. But when you are asked to best-fit the points using a polynomial, you know you are being asked to find a 6-th degree polynomial, not a 7, 8, etc degree polynomials, even though they most certainly ALSO will do the job, but since there are an infinite number of 7th degree polynomials (and same with 8th, 9th, etc), it is non-sensical to argue the question is punishing creativity. Do you see my point?

Creativity is not an ability to make up endless possibilities willy-nilly in a manner that’s detached from the context/reality. That’s delusion/self-confusion. Creativity is thinking up APPLICABLE alternatives, which requires you to evaluate each alternative based on its reasonableness and applicability to the situation you are thinking them up FOR. Your criticisms fail at this second step.

Cows give milk. Hens give eggs. Sheep give wool. Pigs give only ham’n’bacon. Therefore, pig does not belong, because it is the only animal which a non-meat eater cannot ethically utilize.

Actually, cows don’t belong, because they’re the only animal in the list a smallholder can’t haul on a bicycle or small car.

No, wait, sheep don’t belong, because they’re the only name whose singular and plural spelling is identical.

]]>By: Dick van Dykehttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/#comment-341
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:07:31 +0000https://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=84#comment-341I do enjoy leople giving their opinions on what animal is the odd one, while completely missing the point of the article.
]]>By: Christianhttps://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/2008/12/my-iq/#comment-340
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:14:17 +0000https://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=84#comment-340Tanya, I think the correct answer is “Cow” because that is the only word that begins with an upper-case character.
]]>